James Baldwin, Plaintiff, v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Inc., Defendant C/A No. 24-319-JFA-SVH United States District Court, D. South Carolina Filed May 20, 2024 Counsel James Baldwin, McCormick, SC, Pro Se. Elizabeth Fulton Morrison, Robert W. Whelan, Whelan Mellen and Norris LLC, Charleston, SC, for Defendant. Hodges, Shiva V., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 In this case, James Baldwin (“Plaintiff”) sues State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Inc. (“Defendant”), for breach of contract relating to an insurance policy issued by Defendant to Plaintiff. This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's motion to quash, motion for default judgment, motion for sanctions, motion for rule to show cause, motion to compel Defendant's response to Plaintiff's interrogatories, and motion to compel discovery. [ECF No. 30, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41].[1] Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), this matter has been assigned to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motions are denied. I. Motion to Quash This case involves an insurance dispute in which Plaintiff seeks coverage under an insurance policy for a loss to personal property caused by fire that occurred on June 6, 2017. Plaintiff was subsequently arrested on charges of first-degree arson and the burning of personal property to defraud an insurer. Those charges were disposed of by entry of nolle prosequi on October 27, 2020, and Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendant on December 20, 2023. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he “was never advised or made aware of the arson charges being dismissed until approximately July 18, 2023 when [he] inadvertently learned of the dismissal of arson,” which he alleges then “trigger[ed] Defendant's obligation to pay the claim.” [ECF No. 1-1 ¶¶ 5–6]. On March 19, 2024, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, Defendant issued a subpoena duces tecum to McCormick Correctional Institution (“MCI”) where Plaintiff is currently incarcerated requesting documents and material showing or otherwise related to inmate access to phone, internet, electronic messaging, and mail from July 1, 2020, to the present. [ECF No. 42-1]. This request included Plaintiff's access to and usage of the listed modes of communication, as well as a statement of transactions from Plaintiff's Cooper Trust Fund Account from July 1, 2020, to the present. Id. On April 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to quash subpoena [ECF No. 30], as well as objections pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2). [ECF No. 31]. Plaintiff's primary objection to the subpoena is that “he has a pending murder case on appeal and information [Defendant] seeks is an attempt to pry upon privileged material that has no relevance on the subject-matter of the case nor facts that was raised by either parties.” [ECF No. 30 at 2]. Defendant's subpoena, however, only seeks documentation showing Plaintiff's access to and usage of certain modes of communication, including, for example, “a copy of incoming and outgoing mail logs,” “[a] log containing names and dates of messages sent to Plaintiff via SCDC's electronic messaging service,” and “[p]hone logs showing Plaintiff's incoming and outgoing calls.” [ECF No. 42-1]. Because Defendant has not requested MCI produce the content of such communications, Plaintiff's motion is denied.[2] II. Motion for Default Judgment *2 Plaintiff appears to seek entry of default judgment against Defendant for Defendant's failure to timely respond to his discovery requests. [ECF No. 37].[3] However, default judgment on this basis is not proper. See Folkes v. Byrd, C/A No. 8:10-22-HMH-BHH, 2010 WL 3400415, at *1 (D.S.C. Aug. 2, 2010) (stating Rule 55 “has nothing to do with the purported failure to answer discovery timely or adequately”), report and recommendation adopted, C/A No. 8:10-22-HMH-BHH, 2010 WL 3400316 (D.S.C. Aug. 26, 2010). Additionally, it appears that Defendant has timely responded to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Plaintiff states he served his first set of discovery requests on February 23, 2024, and his second set on February 26, 2024. [See ECF No. 43]. The court granted Defendant two extensions of time to respond to these requests, allowing Defendant until April 12, 2024, to respond to Plaintiff's first set of discovery requests [ECF No. 21] and until April 25, 2024, to respond to Plaintiff's second set of discovery requests [ECF Nos. 26, 27]. Defendant has submitted to the court its responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests, the first dated April 12, 2014, and the second dated April 22, 2024. [ECF Nos. 60, 46-1, see also ECF No. 45 at 1 (Plaintiff stating MCI received “discovery legal documents” from Defendant on April 18, 2024)]. In sum, it appears that Defendant has timely responded to Plaintiff's discovery requests. For this reason and the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion is denied. III. Remaining Motions Relatedly, Plaintiff has filed motions to compel concerning what he alleges to be Defendant's inadequate responses to his discovery requests. [ECF Nos. 40, 41]. Likewise, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is grounded in his argument that Defendant failed to provide complete answers to his discovery requests. [ECF No. 38]. Finally, Plaintiff's motion for rule to show cause argues Defendant should be held in contempt for not adequately participating in the discovery process. [ECF No. 39]. In these filings, Plaintiff reiterates his position, addressed by the court above, that Defendant has failed to timely respond to his discovery requests. For reasons already stated, Plaintiff's position is without merit. Plaintiff additionally argues that “the majority of the answers provided” by Defendant in response to his discovery requests “were incomplete.” [ECF No. 38 at 1–2, see also ECF No. 40 at 1 (“Defendant refused and still refuses to provide answers to said standard and supplement interrogatories and requests for production”)]. However, the court has reviewed Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests, including all reasonable objections [ECF No. 46-1, ECF No. 60], and is unable to determine what specific responses are incomplete, as Plaintiff argues. *3 For these reasons, Plaintiff's motions are denied.[4] IV. Conclusion and Order For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motions to quash, for default judgment, for sanctions, for rule to show cause, to compel Defendant's response to Plaintiff's interrogatories, and to compel discovery [ECF No. 30, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41] are denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] Also pending before the court is Defendant's second motion to compel that is not yet ripe. [ECF No. 53]. Discovery closes in this case on June 17, 2024. [See ECF No. 57]. [2] Plaintiff also argues that the subpoena placed an undue burden on South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) officials. [ECF No. 30 at 1]. However, Plaintiff is not the proper party in this instance to assert an undue burden objection to the subpoena. See Zajac v. Red Wing, LLC, C/A No. 2:16-1856-PMD, 2018 WL 9989662, at *2 (D.S.C. Feb. 27, 2018) (agreeing that “if the information being sought is otherwise discoverable, it is for the subpoenaed entities themselves to object on the ground of undue burden,” not plaintiff) (citation omitted)). [3] Plaintiff argues that Defendant failed to timely answer his complaint. Plaintiff filed his summons and complaint in the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas on December 20, 2023. [See ECF No. 1-1]. Defendant subsequently removed the action to this court on January 22, 2024, within thirty days from Defendant's receipt of the complaint. [See ECF No. 1]. Defendant then filed its answer on January 29, 2024, seven days after Defendant filed its notice of removal, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(2). [ECF No. 8]. [4] Plaintiff has also filed an objection to the court's previous order denying his request for a blank subpoena form, where he did not provide sufficient information for the court to grant his request. [See ECF No. 44, see also ECF No. 35]. In his objection, Plaintiff indicates he “seeks relevant information that he knows exists from York's County Solicitor's Office” where Plaintiff was “falsely charged with a felony and the Solicitor lacked sufficient evidence to convict Plaintiff.” [ECF No. 44]. Plaintiff argues this information is needed “to refute the defendant's contentions alleging that Plaintiff committed an offense of arson to defraud the insurer ....” Id. Although Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3) provides that “[t]he clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise blank, to a party who requests it,” Plaintiff still has not provided sufficient information for the court to grant his request, including whether he is seeking documents, testimony, or both, specifically from whom, and whether what he seeks from the non-party are obtainable from Defendant through a request for the production of documents. Additionally, it appears that what Plaintiff seeks may be privileged. See, e.g., Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Washington v. United States Dep't of Just., 45 F.4th 963, 973 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (“As a general matter, records reflecting prosecutors’ views on whether the evidence in a case supports initiating a prosecution will qualify for protection under the deliberative-process privilege.”).